Hello everyone. June has really flown by, hasn't it? I kept meaning to write a review, but then life got in the way. Plus it's been nice outside and I recently joined a class for the summer, so I haven't been home most evenings. Today, unexpectedly, I was home earlier than usual with nothing to do, so I decided I'd finally sit down and review Michael Patrick Jann's Drop Dead Gorgeous starring Kirsten Dunst, Denise Richards (never thought I'd see her face again after Starship Troopers), Ellen Barkin, Allison Janney, and Kirstie Alley. Honestly, I encourage you guys to check out the cast - it's filled with a ton familiar faces who I hadn't seen, well, since the nineties. And others you may recognise now.
Mount Rose, Minnesota is holding its annual beauty pageant in order to have their town represented in the state and, hopefully, national beauty pageant. A documentary crew follows around the contestants who range from overly creepy to down-right sadistic, with one face, Amber Atkins (Kirsten Dunst), hoping to win in order to follow in the steps of Diane Sawyer and her mom (Ellen Barkin).
With such a low rating, I thought this film would be horrendous. I mean, a friend recommended it to me saying he thought it was hilarious, but still, I've been wronged before. In fact, Drop Dead Gorgeous is actually pretty legit. Now, I think it's a dark comedy aimed at the female crowd given the subject matter, that is, I don't see a guy watching this and being particularly amused, but it definitely had some great jokes. The humour really was dark at times. One of my favourites was when the girl adopted by the Japanese family (watch the film to get it) is honouring the United States for their "nuclear arsenal". Honestly, I was impressed with that one. And there are others, trust me.
I honestly don't know if I have much else to say about the film given that I had low standards for it and the jokes were actually not bad. The acting was fine, and I thought Denise Richards and Kirsten Dunst did great jobs. I mean, I suppose I could talk about the subject matter, but I think the film speaks for itself on everything. The only issue I had is that the film is supposed to be filmed like a documentary, but it really wasn't in that style at all. It gave an excuse for characters to talk to the camera, but don't half-ass the documentary style, please.
Drop Dead Gorgeous is a nice little dark film dealing with a normally pleasant and all-fake event, a beauty pageant. It's not superb film-making and the non-documentary-style bothered me, but given my little expectations, it came out okay. Would recommend for the morbid girl in your life.
Salut tout le monde! Des fois, j'oublie que ça fait, quoi, quatre ans que j'ai commencé ce blogue? Mais, pendant tout ce temps, je n'ai jamais oublié ma première critique, celle pour J'ai tué ma mère - principalement à cause de Xavier Dolan et François Arnaud... Ahem. C'est une blague (maybe?), mais de toute façon, après d'avoir vue Les amours imaginaires (je l'ai pas aimé), j'ai pris une pause avec Xavier Dolan. Avec la sortie de Mommy avec Anne Dorval (t'en souviens?), Antoine-Olivier Pilon et Suzanne Clément (Patrick Huard fait une apparition dans le film! Whaaat!), qui a gagné/était nommé pour des prix et des prix, notamment à le festival de Cannes, j'ai décidé que c'était le temps de le regarder. Wise choice, no?
Diane Després (Anne Dorval), "Die" for short, is still attempting to control her son, Steve O'Connor Després (Antoine-Olivier Pilon), after the death of her husband three years ago. Steve is prone to violent outbursts leading to a near incarceration in a psychiatric institution for minors based on a new law only for his mother to intervene and take the responsibility of caring for him at home. At her wits end of trying to pay for the fees of his destructive behaviour with little success in holding a job, her shy and stuttering neighbour, Kyla (Suzanne Clément), comes to their rescue.
At face value, Mommy is pretty similar to J'ai tué ma mère for the reason that it shows the turmoil of a mother dealing with her sometimes overbearing teenage son. You know all that yelling, all that anger, all that passion from J'ai tué ma mère? It gets even crazier in Mommy. I was sitting there wondering what the HELL was even going down half the time because seriously, the movie is intense. But that is Xavier Dolan's style (my judgement from the three films I watched) - he brings people to their wits end and shows their extreme anger and frustration and desperation, which I have to say is handled super well in Mommy. I remember finding it kind of blah in Les amours imaginaires, but he got it right in Mommy. Now, how he gets there is a different story. I would be sitting there thinking that Die was the most selfish woman in the world, and just wanting to rip out my hair thinking that any mother would give her life to her son. But I have to admit that one, I've never been a mother, so while I am told it is a selfless act, I don't know how much a mother actually forgets herself when caring for her child, especially when they're fifteen; two, Steve est FUCKÉ BIEN RED, he is insane, so I can only say that I'm sure any single parent would be driven to near insanity with the kid; and three, she struggles financially, so that stress is also there, and hence why she goes to men (like Patrick Huard) for "exploitation". It makes for an experience, I'll tell you that. If you're into films of real personal struggle, one that delves into the end of patience and the breakdown of a person, Mommy is definitely it and I recommend it for that.
But Mommy doesn't stop there because it also encompasses the struggle of the Québécois identity as it exists in the 21st century. I'll briefly explain Québec, which I can't remember if I've done previously, so bear with me please. Basically, like the Basque nationalists of Spain or the Venetians of Italy, the Québécois have always had an identity separate of that of the rest of Canada, which makes basic sense to me given that Québec is French-based and follows the France law system. Sure, provinces that border Québec will have French-speakers who don't identity as Québécois, but in the province of New Brunswick, lying east of Québec, a friend from there told me that the French speakers and English speakers kept to themselves - it was not as "bilingual" as I had imagined. A good example which has stuck by through and through is when a presentateur on a television show explained that while most of the English-speaking world was preoccupied with who had shot J.R. (a reference to the show Dallas), Québec was laughing at the jokes of Rock et belles oreilles. There were two referendums held, the last one in 1992, and I will say, living in present-day Québec in a larger city, separatism is no longer a goal. There are parties which stress it, but they've missed major points in the idea behind it and I can't really say anyone takes them seriously. Regardless of this issue, I still firmly believe that Québec has its own identity which differs from the rest of Canada, if only for language and the culture brought from by it.
So how does this relate to Mommy? The film starts off right away with Die walking into a corrections facility (or jail? I didn't catch it, to be honest) to pick up her son and the woman she speaks to is francophone, but from France. She asks Die if she speaks French since Die seems to be ignoring what she is telling her, and Die bitterly tells her, "Well, I don't speak French from France, but yeah, I speak French." I was just there like, "Whooooah, damn!" I have faced this hate when speaking to French people from France, and apparently in France, French speakers are ready to tell you that they speak English if you attempt to speak to them in "québécois". I'm not sure if Brazilians feel the same level of hate in Portugal, but anyway... But yes, there is definitely a hate and Québécois, or at least the ones I have met, are ready to note a distinction between them and the French from France. So this scene, nearly the first speaking scene in the movie, is already showing a shadow on Québec and maybe just a critique on the dialect. The film has another prominent scene right after where Die and Steve are heading to Die's work and need to take a taxi there. The man, a black man from maybe Haiti (I can't really tell from the accent, I'm sorry), doesn't listen to Die when she tells him not to take a particular route since he isn't allowed to turn left, but he seems to ignore her comments. Of course a fight ensues where the man calls Die a "bitch", enraging Steve to no end. He insults him, and Die tells him to calm down and not be racist, with him telling her "I'm not racist, he's just an ass and shouldn't insult you" (I'm being kind). Now, am I saying that Die was perfectly cilivised in her behaviour and that Steve wasn't yelling profanities? No. The cab driver got pissed off and did overextend himself, though he had every reason to be angry, but Mommy is nonetheless throwing in this dilemma with mass immigration and miss-communication in Québec. I know it's this joke all around where cab drivers are always from a foreign country, but it nonetheless points out this stigma in Québec. Finally, at some point when Kyla asks Die what her deceased husband did, she mentions that her invented things, particular some instrument, which Kyla screams about and says she had. Die confirms, "Yeah, until the Americans came in." Honestly, these three instances were enough to put a little highlight on Mommy. Xavier Dolan's focus, at least this is my belief, is to tell the tale of a woman on the brink of insanity. But I can't say I felt a moment of pride when I saw these three scenes come in. Xavier Dolan is not just presenting a film, but making some commentary as well. Wonderful.
Mommy can resonate with any viewer in its message about strength about women and child, but it goes a little bit beyond as well. Be ready for Freudian catches in the film, which was probably the one thing I really didn't get... Anyway, great work, Xavier Dolan, as well as to the superb acting of Anne Dorval, Suzanne Clément, and Antoine-Olivier Pilon! Awesome!
There are some films you watch once and vow to never watch them again, and there are others that you could watch dozens of times. Apart from my holiday viewing of Withnail & I which you all know about, I always catch myself watching Mike Judge's Office Space starring Ron Livingston, David Herman, Ajay Naidu, and Jennifer Aniston, every few years. I remember my friend showing it to me back in elementary school, the meaning probably completely lost on me. But somehow its comedic-yet-tragic tone stuck with me, as years later in high school, I watched it again. I think I watched it again at some point in my post-graduate studies, but after searching for something to watch, I suggested that my boyfriend and I check out the beloved classic. In the end, he confused it with Falling Down, which I never saw, but apparently he had seen it anyway... Roll the tape!
Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) hates his job - seriously. His bosses, particular Bill Lumbergh (Gary Cole), are atrocious, the job is demotivating, and he is reduced to a rat in a cage. His attempts at following the norm fail, but after visiting a hypnotherapist who proceeds to die midway through a hypnosis, Peter comes up with a plan. Following his colleagues, Michael Bolton (David Herman) and Samir Nagheenanajar (Ajay Naidu), they plan to steal the plot of Superman III by taking money no one will miss.
I mean, already you know that I like Office Space since I've watched it over and over again. The reality is, the film isn't historic, the film isn't a masterpiece, but I think that's what makes it so great. The movie really shows the life of a man who can't just accept his shitty working conditions. He can't accept that companies will fire dozens, hundreds, thousands of employees just to raise a stock. Bref, he can't live the way modern society exists today. Companies used to care about their employees, and they used to legitimately care about the well being of their workers. Now, given our throw-away culture, it is not surprising to see how a company (or any job, really) will attempt to put more work on a reduced number of workers in order to save bucks in the long run. I'm new to the job force, but from others around me, it is not always the case, but it definitely happens. And I see this as such an important message - we're raised to work, not to enjoy life. Of course work is a necessity; I would never advocate sitting on your ass and doing nothing because that isn't healthy. But some people don't fit that mold, and honestly, I wouldn't want to work a desk top with TPS reports... Honestly, eff software engineers, hehe (my boyfriend is a software engineer, so I'm actually not hating).
So while Office Space resorts to a clear message, it is still fun. You still get laughs out of it. The film is really not stupendous - the acting is usually mediocre and kind of... weird - but its message is clear and I still find myself returning to it. Check it out - if only for the crazed loner (Stephen Root) and awesome neighbour (Diedrich Bader).
Somehow I always stumble back on Jan Svankmajer. In fact, I’d say he’s the director I have visited most consistently over the years, well, in terms of blogging, anyway. There’s something eye-catching about raw meat making love or creepy dolls running around in endless circles. So of course when I finally got the opportunity to watch Sílení, or Lunacy in English, starring Pavel Liska, Anna Geislerová, Jan Tríska, and Martin Huba, I was there. Normally I force my boyfriend to watch these films with me, but I sat through this one solo – I think maybe he’s getting tired of having to watch such messed-up stop motion.
Lunacy starts off a bit differently than Svankmajer’s other films as our beloved director steps in front of the camera and describes the film we are about to see. He describes the film as a horror movie, describing how the current world as it stands places lunatics in mental wards that encompass the worst of both libertinism and religious dogma. However, while he claims the film to be about mental wards, the film should be placed as an explanation for society today. Also, major spoilers ahead, so be warned!
Jean first experiences the horrors of nihilism when he witnesses the Marquis’ orgy the first night he is there. The whole scene is the most extreme it could be – the Marquis hammers nails into a life-sized crucifix, three women and three men eat – seriously – feces-looking chocolate cake until they commence an orgy, and a woman is raped against her will. I was waiting for a blood ritual, but I think the Marquis’ Baphomet mask was enough. In an argument with Jean, the Marquis reveals that God would never create man in order to let him live such a life unless to make us suffer, as well as claiming God has done worse than he has. This alone is definitely an argument many atheists and agnostics place in front of creationists whenever religion comes on the table. Even if not consciously debating, those who do not hold a moral standing in line with God can’t really argue that what the Marquis did was wrong, and hence, orgies or even one-night stands exist and are prevalent.
Now, apart from this topic, we learn that the Marquis attempts to recreate his mother’s demise every so often when he pretends to die only to come back alive. When he does it in front of Jean, he chokes on a banana, which, given the circumstance, is quite a particular food to take, if you know what I mean. Anyway, this leads to the Marquis explaining his “purgative method” of helping the possibly mentally ill; he and fellow psychiatrist Dr. Murlloppe believe that letting the mentally ill do as they wish will help them in their recovery. This somehow seems flawed when you think of depressed patients who may wish to kill themselves, although the film does say the patients there are not ill yet. But if you think of other circumstances, such as letting your child have reign on what they want to eat or what they can do, you realise this is a current-day situation.
On the other hand, we have, toward the end of the film when the original directors of the psychiatric ward, a Middle-Ages type of view on the disease. The head director believes in extreme forms of punishment to ward off the mentally ill, claiming he has thirteen forms of punishment in store for those who disobey the rules, including the removal of the tongue and eyes. This was definitely Marquis de Sade all over again, but now with the idea of God behind it. We find out that the director also attempted to follow his punishment method by removing his penis, but in the end, buys a replacement in order to fornicate with Charlotte. So really, the mentally ill are considered mentally ill, even if they aren’t, but they never learn to truly escape their problems. After starting to complete a psychology degree and stopping, this definitely reflects practice today. At least in Western medicine, people believe medication can be the one all, end all for a psychological disorder when we actually don't know the effects of antidepressants over long periods of time, and the reason you take medication is only to stabilise a problem so therapy can be effective and thus, one day get off the medication.
I suppose before I close this off, I should mention the little meat segments. While somewhat disturbing to a new viewer, a knowing fan will be reminded of Svankmajer's shorts. The segments themselves often reflect what the previous scene was about in the film, while really showing us as "nothing but meat".
I think Lunacy is a great surrealistic piece of work as it tries to do something weird, but brings the viewer along. With Svankmajer's introduction, you know what you will be seeing in the film, so everything is there. But even without the introduction, I'd say you could get the message Svankmajer was trying to convey. And that is surrealism I like - some things are messed up, but I get the message. Unlike Black Moon...
Crazy as usual, Lunacy stands up to its name, all while giving an interesting message in an interesting way. Thank you, Svankmajer!
Hey guys! Long time no see. Life has been hectic since I finished school given some pretty scary events, as well as a (temporary) move for the summer. While my last week back home was about seeing as many people as I could, I've spent the past week relaxing as soon as I get home. It's amazing how different work and school are, being able to clear your mind when you get home, unless you're your own boss, of course. Anyway, my friend recommended a site that is kind-of like the pretentious version of Netflix, and trust me when I say I've had great fun (although I have to say, the films I've watched so far are no substance and all emotional and artful views - but I put the site up in case you're looking for a new film). He also recommended a show based in Australia called Please Like Me starring Josh Thomas (also the creator of the show), Thomas Ward, David Roberts, Debra Lawrence, Renee Lim, and Caitlin Stasey. I was willing to give it a shot - I mean, I'm always looking for weird shows. Plus it was Australian, which I thought could be interesting.
Josh (Josh Thomas) is faced with a difficult decision after his girlfriend, Claire (Caitlin Stasey), breaks up with him over a nineteen-dollar sundae as she believes he is gay. Initially oblivious to the idea, he is soon faced with a potential love interest at his roommate's, Tom (Thomas Ward), work. In the meantime, his mother (Debra Lawrence) attempts suicide, distressing his father (David Roberts) and stressing his new girlfriend, Mae (Renee Lim), and it seems like Josh will be in the middle of more drama than he wants.
I was really hopeful, guys. I really was. I checked out the first episode, and it had the awkward cute humour of Short Poppies. I was down, so down. It was a bit more oddly executed, but it was similar enough. So I checked out the second episode. Again, I laughed at the Montagues and Capulets scene with Geoffrey (Wade Briggs), so I checked out the third episode... But it was stale, and turning sour. And then I finished the season, but it felt so... pathetic and melodramatic. So I checked out the first episode of the second season, and I checked out a season in the middle of the second season, and I watched the last episode of the third season, and I dropped it. What the hell? What happened? What happened to the cute humour of the first and second episode? It was gone - just gone! I was so hopeful, and it was just obliterated!
The reality is, while Short Poppies was awkward and thus cute, Please Like Me just got less awkward and more infuriating. I won't continue with the Short Poppies comparison because that show doesn't deserve it, so I end it here. Basically, Please Like Me spews out asinine characters who are the most incompetent cardboard cutouts I have ever seen in my life. Literally, I can separate the men and women into categories: men are pansies who belittle themselves, and women are super dominant to the point of insanity. The only exception is maybe Josh who gets out of the formula a little bit, but basically, any man who is attracted to a woman is getting his balls curb-stomped. And I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. Tom, the roommate, is the most horribly undermined, weak, pathetic, FLACID excuse for a man I have NEVER seen in my life. No man - or woman for that matter - is as two-dimensional as this guy. The series starts out with him going out with the lord of bitches (we'll get to this). He always says he'll break up with her, but never does with fear of rejection and never finding anyone else. In the end, he makes out with Claire and, after a baby scare (because he's an idiot, if I forgot to mention), he dumps his girlfriend. But then he continues to sleep with her after Claire leaves for Germany. I get that Josh Thomas, the creator, was gay, but are you seriously telling me he doesn't understand how women AND MEN act in relationships? I feel like the show almost promotes being gay because then you aren't dealing with shit women - instead, you get to deal with super hot guys who will sleep with you at a moment's notice.
Anyway, Tom, while the epitome of the weak guy, is not the only one. Josh's dad is also a poor excuse for a man. He is dating a Thai woman who treats him like shit. She bitches about everything he does. Check it - I complain about my boyfriend (more jokingly than anything), just as he complains about me. But literally, I feel like this woman was just using him in order to get citizenship. She insults him in Thai to her parents, and he just waits on her and says he's sorry for thinking so much about his ex-wife and her depression. They end up having a baby together (great) and I think she admits cheating on him, but I didn't see the episode. But in the last episode, they're still together, so I think she just wrapped him around her finger, just like every woman's plan, muahaha. Seriously, where are the balls? I need balls! I need some women-smacking men in here!
Before I drop this (because those are our main male characters, folks!), I have one last comment to make about how disgusting this whole thing is. It's related to Tom again (spoilers). He ends up going out with this eighteen-year-old woman and they have a rabbit or something and the rabbit ends up dying... somehow (it's never explained). Tom calls up the girl, tells her the news, and she says, "Come over, we're having a funeral now!" Tom puts the rabbit in a birthday bag (I don't see the humour, at all), brings it on the train, and they bury it the girl's backyard (as she commands him to dig a deeper hole). In the end, they go to her room, and she slaps him, kisses him, slaps him, and tells him to take off his clothes. She then has intercourse with him BAREBACK (i.e. no condom. Jesus Christ, freakin' idiot) while she sobs and whatever. He ends up cumming quickly because bareback, and she calls him pathetic and tells him to leave. He does, and on the way back, he sobs after being "raped". Now, I'm not saying men can't be raped - they can. But this? This is rape? This is the equivalence of a little boy commanding a full-grown woman to take off her clothes, i.e. SHE CAN KNOCK THE SHIT OUT OF HIM WITH A SIMPLE WHACK. At no point does he make any initiative to say no. He could easily have walked out - Thomas Ward towers over this girl. If she had tried to stop him, he could have easily have overpowered her and held her down. A man IS STRONGER THAN A WOMAN in more cases than not. This? This is not raped. This is being so psychologically submissive to women that you make bad decisions. Had she drugged him and he woke up naked and psychologically scarred? Yes, rape. This? Not rape. NOT RAPE.
Now that I have the men out of the way, what about the women? Well, you know by now since it takes two to tango that the women in Please Like Me are bad. It's insulting how bad they were. Tom's first girlfriend, Niamh, as I said already, is a bitch. But seriously, you need to understand that she has no saving grace. NONE. Any time she opens her mouth, she is complaining, saying something bitchy, being a complete whore. People are not all bad, for god's sake. Yes, you have bitchy women, yes, you have annoying ones, but she is literally always angry and being a bitch. Do you not see how many times I used the word bitch?
Claire is just... I don't even know. She makes out with her ex-boyfriend's roommate and it's all cool somehow, and she fights with Niamh and ultimately makes Tom's decisions (from what I saw). She tells Josh they are still friends, and somehow this is cool again. Honestly, she wasn't saying enough for me to complain that much because she mostly just made out with Tom. In fact, she makes out with him while he may be a father. "But he did it too!" you cry. Yes, they both kissed, but she felt NO REMORSE.
As for Josh's mom, I, shit, well, I have nothing to say. She doesn't act like she has depression - unless she is bipolar and always feeling manic or something. At first she was okay, staying at home (though she really doesn't care for her son, but anyway), but the moment she started this Internet dating and started talking, it was gone. She is an idiot and honestly, I'm done with her.
Finally, Mae. As I said already, she is a bitch to her boyfriend/husband, Josh's dad. She was okay at first, but again, the moment she started talking more, including that Skype chat with her parents, it was over. It was over. I had not a single female character who was normal. The only thing is that the one female mental patient, Hannah, is okay from what I saw, but you want to know why? SHE DIDN'T TALK. But even she was bitter all the time. So really, I had no one. It felt like The Social Network (which I hated, by the way) where every single female character is a bitch, except I think for one girlfriend who we see only at the beginning. Yeah, I still remember that and I saw it in theatres in 2010 - and I will always remember this about this show.
So what about Josh? I have refrained from discussing him so far. Well, as I said, he doesn't quite fit into the pathetic man category, but he's an idiot as well. Guys, WHY. He is so two-dimensional AGAIN and just a jerk in situations where it is completely uncalled for. And honestly, this series just sees him hooking up with the most random guys, and I got the impression it was just because he was gay and they were gay, so hey, hook-up time. Seriously, he's a jerk. I actually liked Geoffrey, though a bit uncalled for sometimes, coming out of nowhere and being weirdly jerkish, like during the baseball game. Anyway, Josh is shit, and while I thought his attitude initially might be funny, it turned disastrous. DISASTROUS.
Please Like Me is bad. The first two episodes were okay, but I feel like the writers just put in the most unbelievable characters in order to get the story that they wanted. Seriously, watch the last episode of season three and tell me you know people like that. It also brought in pretty unimpressive views of life, like just settling for who you are now and never improving (what?). It also had great fun telling me about the war on terror and Syria (the show just copy-pasting the media - yay!) to try and make it seem like the show cares... NO ONE CARES, OR THIS SHOW WOULD NOT EXIST. Please Like Me? No. I will not.
Somehow I came out alive this semester. After blundering through in an almost never-ending pile of garbage, I made it out. The relief is immense, but I suppose the stress will only be completely eradicated once I get my grades for all my classes (only two and three labs to go!). During the end of the semester and finals, I was so down to write reviews about anything, but I knew I should actually prioritise my study time. I was going to review Forbidden Planet, but it's been so long that all I can say it's thumbs way up so definitely check it out. Then with Prince's death, I was going to review Purple Rain, but I watched it at least one year ago, probably more like two, and it was actually just plain boring (except for Sex Shooter - love that song!). And, well, I haven't watched any films in a while, so instead I'm here to review something new - a book!
I'm a pretty avid reader, and if I really like a novel, I can speed through it pretty quickly. Though lately I have been trekking through classics, like Le comte de Monte-Cristo (finished tome 1! Only another six hundred pages to go) and The Divine Comedy (which I am reading in English because my Italian is level zero), so my reading has been limited. Usually I don't really have much to say about classics except a yay or nay because either it was to my liking or it wasn't, or it was so darn long and weird that maybe I actually can't say anything. But sometimes I come across a classic where I have a lot to say, and that's the case with Joseph Heller's Catch-22.
Catch-22 tells the story of John Yossarian, part of the air forces during World War II, who wishes he could be anywhere but Italy in the middle of a war. In an attempt to leave the forces forever, he is faced with the now famous Catch-22: any man who continues to fly missions is deemed insane, and thus is free to leave, but any man who doesn't want to fly is sane, and must stay.
From this alone, we know the book is anti-war. I found it hilarious since I bought Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie!) at the same time as this guy, and let me tell you, Starship Troopers is definitely pro-military. But whatever, I mean, I would never join the forces/national guard/reserves/whatever everything is referred to in your country. Maybe to help out through my knowledge of optical devices or lasers (or xasers! I know they're called x-ray lasers, but the "l" stands for "light" and I take it as visible light, not just electromagnetic radiation, so eff you guys. Although I just found out that our gamma lasers are going to be called "grasers", not "gasers", which upsets me... TANGENT), but I'm not ready to face any training associated with joining those guys (I like the physical aspect, but chemical warfare exposure? People exploding in your face? No). And I agree that World War II and the Vietnam War messed people up and war itself is hideous - hence why I would never join - but I also believe that human civilisation will always use war and fighting to sort problems, nor can we expect other peoples to not want to come rushing with guns. I would hope that psychological benefits would be offered to any participant in a war without a bat of the eye, but, well, that isn't always the case. Either way, while I agree with the global "make peace, not war", I also believe it's naive to think the movements will actually work. Unless the politicians are the ones stuck fighting, they'll continue.
Anyway, here I am criticising the message of the book without even giving it a chance. Well, okay, the book does present the same point I said (and it probably inspired it) - the commissioned officers who sit on their asses and don't do shit will obviously up the missions because it doesn't damage them in any way - they care about the status. But I found it a bit offensive how the book took it. I mean, every person I have spoken to who has participated in the military can be... somewhat crazy (seriously, you're joining the army - what do you expect?), but completely respectable people who had some level of intelligence - at least those who Catch-22 shames with banalities and stupidities. If I was in the forces, I don't know how I would appreciate the book. Anti-war, fine, but to say everyone in the army is a moron is massively exaggerated. "But the book is a satire! It's funny and exaggerating!" you will say. Yes, that's true, but unlike the portrayal of an Irishman as a drunk, a stereotype, this one feels like it has no basis. It's like portraying an Irishman as a voodoo witch doctor - it's off and doesn't make sense. At least to me - maybe you'd see it differently.
Now, let's say the message aside. I mean, I'm actually only thinking about this now that I've sat down and started writing and thinking about it. Because I thought the book was funny. I laughed at the contradictions, I laughed at the mannerisms of some people - that is, until the book started dragging. Catch-22 if nothing else, was longer than it should have been. The catch-22's throughout the book died off once you knew exactly what everyone was going to say. It reminded me of Heart of Darkness. Let me explain - Heart of Darkness was a novella and it explained the sanity of man and the animalistic nature that cannot be escaped (see: Apocalypse Now). That novella could have gone on and on about the man's journey through the Congolese jungle, but it didn't - the novella was short, to the point, and told me what I wanted to know. But Catch-22 went on forever. Dude, seriously, as much as I laughed at the Champlain and the crazy behaviour of Yossarian, by page 200, I was wondering how this could go on any longer. And it went on for another three hundred pages about. Jesus, are you serious? It literally taught me nothing new and the whole paradoxical style died. It was gone. It was over. Sure, the whole time you're wondering what the hell is up with Orr (read the book to get it), but seriously, this thing was unnecessarily long. And it pissed me off because it was so long. I just wanted to finish it, to say I was done, and it went on.
I don't really have much else to say about Catch-22. I can see why the paradoxes brought it to fame, but I think the book should not be considered a classic. Its message is a bright light blinding you, and then it drags on for way longer than it should have. I didn't agree with the way the message was portrayed and honestly, I didn't get the end - what the hell does it mean that Yossarian runs away from the war? Honestly, it feels like a cop-out - I stayed until the end, so should the protagonist. It's like the book itself couldn't escape and just ran away... But seriously, what does it mean if a captain just leaves its crew? Yossarian feels bad because he's leaving everyone after the commissioned officers tell him he's free if he tells fabulous stories about them, but then it's like, "Eff it, I'll run away, that means I don't have to feel bad." Court-martialed and just bullshit all around.
Anti-war is fine, but Catch-22 was kind of bullshit in its way of going about the subject. Slaughterhouse-Five? Sure, that was cool. But don't read Catch-22 - the synopsis will tell you the highlight of the book, and that's all you need.
Somehow a friend and I got on the topic of Le petit prince (The Little Prince, but whenever I refer to it in French in this review, I'm referring to the book - let me make a distinction) back in February, and we agreed we would check out the film. Personally, I felt a little conflicted as I was worried the story would be warped to fit some social agenda, as Zootopia was (please see my review to see I'm not just talking out of my ass). But hey, a deal's a deal, right? At first I thought the film had come out, but then it turned out it hadn't... Thankfully my friend proposed that we watch it this week, and in fact, found it playing at a dollar cinema near his house. Being the frugal and little-business supporter I am, I was down, so down. Heading into an almost rundown mall, we proceeded with caution into the theatre... An old man greeted us with free popcorn since it was our first time, as well as one dollar snacks. The film ticket, practically priceless. Guys, if you know of a dollar cinema in your area, go. Anyway, the man told us to proceed to room two, and sneaking in, we were presented with a huge movie area, full of cinema chairs and, well, school chairs. We sat down, dying of laughter, and the film projected on to the screen with an audience of six, the other four being two mother-child pairs. Awesome. I was set for Mark Osborne's The Little Prince. (And yes, I did watch it in English given that the film was brought forth through an American company. I'm a bit of a purist, could you tell?)
The protagonist of our story is an aspiring young girl (voiced by Mackenzie Foy) with an equally ambitious mother (Rachel McAdams). After failing an entrance exam into the prestigious Werth Academy (which was apparently named after the child the book was dedicated to, but I'm sure the word itself has to do with it), the duo move into the neighbourhood to ensure entry. However, their crazy Aviator neighbour (Jeff Bridges) will change the little girl's life forever with the story Le petit prince.
I was pleasantly surprised by this guy. I was sure, sure I would find something to hate about it, but I have to say that I don't have many complaints. It's important to know that the film is not just the original novella telling - as you can tell from my synopsis - but the story of a little girl who needs to remember that she's a little girl. She, of course, accomplishes this through her neighbour who gives her the story of The Little Prince, which actually worked super well. The film misses out on some primary characters the little prince meets along the way, but it applies the one that fit well into it. Personally, I had no problem with this because the ones it keeps it portrays properly. Honestly, it keeps the adultness of the story while still appealing to a child. I mean, I think the story is maybe lost a bit on a super young child, but it definitely doesn't contain anything super creepy or scary that a young child couldn't handle. And honestly, this is more a critique of the novella which I think is absolutely fantastic in showing a child the depressing ways of the world, but nonetheless with a way that gives a clear, perhaps ambiguous, but happy ending. Honestly, I'm sorry that I didn't read this book as a child - for particular reasons, I avoided it. But I would cent pour cent recommend it for a child, as well as an adult. Just... perfect.
But before I go on too much of a tangent about the book, let me talk about the movie. The Little Prince succeeds in a more contemporary view of the loneliness and pressure a child may face now. Parents are pushing their children to become grown-ups and adding the stress of succeeding in school. Now, I am not saying this is bad - you need to teach your children discipline and you need to show them the value of education (or at least through my view), but as the movie shows, taking it to the extreme is not the way to go about it. It also shows the single-mother household, a growing reality that I can only imagine reflects the truth - a mother who is not necessarily home as often as she can be, with a child having to grow up before their time. The Little Prince shows the faults in this: one, that a child needs to live a little before growing up and actually having to take on major responsibilities, and two, the importance of a family relationship. It should always be a parent's duty to take care of their child, not the school system they are being put into. I also think it is important for a child to have both a mother and father influence, but I don't think this was necessarily intentional from the filmmaker's point of view, i.e. having the Aviator as a male. Anyway, the film really handled this well. It stresses the idea that growing up isn't the problem, but forgetting is. And honestly, I agree. That's a philosophy of my life where I feel like having an optimistic, sometimes naive view of the world is what let's you get by. And it keeps you young at heart and sincere. Obviously I'm not saying that you should neglect all duties of your life, but anyway, I'm not going to talk about my followings - I'll let you watch the film/read the book and let you make up your own mind.
As for the animation, I was, once again, pleasantly surprised. I thought the animation was going to be... cheap for whatever reason, but it wasn't. I personally absolutely loved the animation for the story time of the little prince - I loved the organic feel, and I loved the fox's tail, hehe. That really made the film for me. Otherwise, the animation was CGI - nothing stupendous, but it did its job. But that animation for the little prince... Awesome! A great way to separate reality from fiction... You know what I mean.
Now I will get back to one point of the book that shines through, and I was just so thankful for. The lesson of taming an animal in order to make it special. Guys, this message is just too true. I remember sitting in a psychology class of mine and the teacher saying that living in huge cities has really made "there are other fish in the sea" line a reality - now, it's so easy to give up on someone to find someone "better". Our disposable culture has constructed us to think that holding out is not a goal and that we should always think of ourselves. But this story - it really shows a truth. That psychology class really hit me as my teacher seemed convinced this was normal and should be the way to live. But the reality is, if you truly care about someone, you both "tame" each other and that is what makes them special. The little prince's conflict of finding out his rose was not the only one in the world was something I think everyone feels at some point, but the fox points out that it is the connection that makes them special, even if they aren't unique. Chasing Amy addresses this in a different way, but Alyssa (our lesbian protagonist who falls for Holden) hides the fact that she has been with other guys before in order to let Holden feel special in a way she feels he never would have understood. Sometimes it's hard just through words to believe, but Le petit prince really shows this, and I felt it such a relief. Of course, if you're with someone you don't belong with, I wouldn't say stay with them, but if you find someone worth keeping, it shouldn't be about trying to find someone more unique, but toughing it out and seeing how you two belong. And honestly, if that was the message from the book alone, I would be there. I would be behind it one hundred and ten percent. And don't worry, the movie keeps this real as well. And I feel it's more applicable than ever as I grow older. Just... wonderful.
The Little Prince is what our children should watch. Yeah, it used a female protagonist just because female protagonists are lacking, but whatever, I don't care - the film stays true to a classic book which teaches us to love and treasure those around us, and shows us that grown ups can be weird, but growing up is not something to fear. Definitely a great, great story. Merci, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Vraiment, merci. And thank you, Mark Osborne, for staying true to a classic.
